Talk:Crevis
Logo I will be locking the page in future to avoid edit warring - the so called "Reebok" influence is to be debated through the talk page, not edit reverts. So far, 2 users disagree with the influence, and 1 is in favor. Just because the shape of 1 side of the triangle matches the two ovals found on the GTA counterpart, and just because it is red, that does not necessarily mean it resembles Reebok - quite the opposite. Standing by your point does not mean you can continue to edit war. Thank you. Incidentally, the Reebok logo doesn't even use ovals for vertices. Monk Talk 15:42, October 21, 2016 (UTC) : "Edit warring" is a stupid term; Edit debating is much better, mainly because no one was even expressing anger. And yes, just because two users are against it doesn't mean it's wrong, either. Compared to Adidas, the logo does not even resemble Adidas's logo; Maybe a small bit of the flower, but not at all. The Reebok resemblance is much more clear in resemblance, even if it is not ovular. Spiky Eared Pichu (talk) 15:46, October 21, 2016 (UTC) ::War is, in essence, a word for conflictive behavior, which means yes, this was a conflict, and the fact it was continuously reverted and rejected as a decision also supports this - a reasonable idea, rather than add debatable information and not allow us to do our job in removing potentially false information, would be to discuss on the talk page. A war does not necessarily involve anger of any form. ::Who ever mentioned Adidas? Rather than replacing a false with a potentially false, the best way to deal with the situation is to remove the false and discuss a potentially false, or potentially positive influence. Two different shapes of the same color are not exactly signs of "resemblance". Monk Talk 15:51, October 21, 2016 (UTC) :::This is one thing that bothers me about a wiki; False information on resemblances. For example, while Binco has a similar name, it may not refer to JNCO, even with the time period GTA: San Andreas was set in. Same with Kiki Jenkin's namesake not being related to a term for the female genitalia in other countries. :::The way to sort this is to search through other brands and see what's actually suitable for a resemblance towards this brand, rather can conflicting about this. Spiky Eared Pichu (talk) 16:04, October 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::If that's how you see it, then why exactly are you disputing it when two people disagree? Look for other "suitable" influences rather than disputing it on the article itself. Monk Talk 15:57, October 21, 2016 (UTC) :::::Because I find this an easier way. :::::Besides, this brand has no resemblance to Adidas whatsoever; The logo stylization is different, Adidas does not use red in the logo, and the font is much different. Spiky Eared Pichu (talk) 15:59, October 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Where and when did anyone state it was resembling Adidas? If so, why exactly are you disputing this if we are discussing the influence of Reebok? I do not see the relevance nor the need to replace a false influence with another one, or the reason to discuss the first false influence in the first place. Monk Talk 16:01, October 21, 2016 (UTC) :::::::Because there are several other instances of false influence on the wiki. Spiky Eared Pichu (talk) 16:04, October 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::We are talking about this specific case. If you wish to discuss the false influences elsewhere on the wiki, perhaps discuss them on their own talk pages, or as a last resort, discuss them on the Community Noticeboard. Monk Talk 16:08, October 21, 2016 (UTC)